TopGun

Very good!

I don't doubt his ability to write about cars and general observational stuff. He trained as a journo. I doubt his understanding of politics.

Nick Robinson reckons: 1. Clegg as Deputy PM 2. Clarke as Chancellor (can't believe that! If true a huge coup for the LDs), Cable as deputy chancellor. 3. Osborne demoted to Business Secretary

Populist is a not a complimentary term by and large.

Meh! That's true.

I would guess that the Sun is about the only paper he can write a political column for tbh. Plus the Star of course. He's a right wing muppet like Dune in many ways.

As many or few as are decided necessary. They get shuffled about and merged and then demerged again.

WTF does that fat headed idiot know? Populist shyte for Sun readers, no more, no less.

A valid point. However the US is a political union, the EU is an economic one although right wingers predictably worry about potential loss of sovereignty obviously.

Well, you also didn't understand the system then either. It is one that we have used for an awfully long time and it is easy to understand.

Another tricky one as it would have to be a big post but the Tories are not backing down on their manifesto in these areas. Maybe Work & Pensions...

We are not propping up the Euro. We are helping support the EU of which we are a part. If Spain and Portugal go the way of Greece it affects all EU nations, not just those who use the Euro as currency.

Right wing will not wear Clarke due to his pro-Europe stance.

But this is why the Tories will always have a problem. For each UKIP voter they regain they lose more to the LDs. In reality the Tories need LD and Lab voters to ever get above 40% of the popular vote so have to actually go to the left.

The reality is as it is. You need to understand the difference between leaders and parties. It gets my goat that people can not comprehend how the system works and make ridiculous comments based on ignorance such as the one above.

So it would make all the difference to you JB had a candidate stood against GB and got walloped anyway (like John Redwood in 1995)? The reason nobody stood against Brown was because there was clear concensus in the Parliamentary Labour Party at the time. And you clearly don't understand that we vote for parties in this country not leaders so your point is pretty irrelevant. Major won the right to be leader of the Tory Party, which was not voted for by the public. So his credentials are no better than Brown's if you want to pursue your pointless line of argument.

There are at least two seats to my certain knowledge where the UKIP + Tory vote would have ousted the Labour MP when in fact the Labour MP survived. One of those seats is John Denham's in Soton Itchen. I suspect there are probably about five or six seats where this occurred. That would have been enough to have made a significant difference.

FFS, will people get a grip and realise we vote for parties, not PMs... The PM is not a president. JB is contorting arguments as Major was chosen by his party as was Brown in that nobody opposed him in the Labour Party. We vote for the party and the party chooses its leader. That's it. It's bloody simple to understand really. People like Hague are just stirring this point up for fools to repeat verbatim.

Cat amongst the pigeon times however you look at it now. Almost impossible to predict what will happen in the next six months and what ultimate outcome that brings about.

What a cretinous remark.

A public inquiry would be almost inevitable as a minimum. The last one into nukes in the 1990s lasted over two years. This would be the same.

The Telegraph reports (as I pointed out above) that nukes will likely be delayed with a Con-LD pact. Same would apply to Lab-LD. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7702411/Nuclear-fears-over-Tory-and-Lib-Dem-coalition.html This is not at all good for closing the projected energy gap.

Finger of Fudge...

Happy days.

It is quite hard work persuading people who have preconceptions but my role is PR and stakeholder comms so in one sense it's good for me that there is so much opposition to various ideas... it keeps me in work! With regard to solar panels I also agree with you. They are much underestimated and will improve as technology such as effective magnifying lens are added to the current panels that are available. I am working with a large museum in Manchester (MOSI - Museum of Science & Industry) to get a 50KW system bolted to their latticed roof at the moment. The museum has a peak load of about 250KW and the estimates show that during the daytime we can get an average of about 25KW out of the panels we want to fit, so 10% of need. The cost of the system to install is about £260,000, of which half will be met by government grants. The remainder will be paid off within 10 years in terms of electricity savings (like a mortgage) and the system should work for 60 years so is a good investment for the museum. I have no doubt that future PV technology would reduce such costs and timeframes even further. Because it is a Museum of Science & Industry it is also intended to showcase the technology to 750,000 annual visitors (many school children) so it fulfils an extra educational purpose also.